Epic fail: Once more, first lady Michelle Obama proves she has no business managing nutrition at the nation’s public schools or anywhere else

(BigGovernment.news) Every first lady (except for Hillary Clinton) had a “hobby” of sorts while their husbands served as leader of the free world, and for Michelle Obama, her efforts have been aimed at ‘reforming’ public school lunch menus.

As we have reported in the past, this effort of hers has been a monumental failure. Working through various federal bureaucracies, Michelle O. has imposed rules and regulations on public school lunch programs that have resulted in kids going hungry and billions of dollars in food being wasted.

Now she wants to spread this epic failure to the rest of the country. As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, her latest effort – updating nutrition facts labeling on foods – isn’t even based on sound science:

A controversial regulation to update the nutrition facts label that is part of the first lady’s Let’s Move push was finalized by the Food and Drug Administration on Friday, and scientists are warning the new label is not based on sound science.

The changes, which she announced last week when she spoke at the Let’s Move-aligned Partnership for a Healthier America (which should be renamed ‘Partnership for a Larger Nanny State’), will require food makers to list added sugars, which scientists say lacks “scientific rigor.” The labeling changes will add another $1.4 billion in regulatory costs to American industry.

“I am thrilled that the FDA has finalized a new and improved Nutrition Facts label that will be on food products nationwide,” Obama said in a statement. “This is going to make a real difference in providing families across the country the information they need to make healthy choices.”

She’s “thrilled,” but hardly anyone is, especially the food industry which much now absorb these costs (before passing them onto consumers in the form of higher prices) and the scientific community. The WFB further noted:

A letter critical of the new label signed by a dozen scientists, including Roger Clemens, a member of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and Eric A. Decker, the head of the Department of Food Science at the University of Massachusetts, was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. The scientists said the new label is “misleading,” and note that it was based on the 2015 Dietary Guidelines, whose committee did not include a single expert on sugars.

“We are concerned that U.S. public health policy in this area may be progressing down a path that history suggests to be counterproductive,” the scientists wrote. “Specifically, the FDA’s proposed rule revising the Nutrition Facts Label with regard to an added sugars declaration and the establishment of a dietary reference value (DRV) of 10 percent lacks both the scientific rigor based on careful consideration or evidence-based reviews and a thorough appraisal of unintended consequences that will surely arise.”

“The FDA has stated its proposals are based on conclusions from the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (2015 DGAC),” they said. “In addition to the widely controversial nature of its report, it is critical to note that this committee did not include a single member with a specific expertise in sugars (or any carbohydrate) metabolism. As nutrition scientists and health professionals, we feel this is of significant concern.”

The letter also noted that the Institute of Medicine and the European Food Safety Authority have “concluded that added sugars are not uniquely linked to obesity, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes.”

“Given that the FDA’s proposal regarding added sugars intake as a causal factor in certain health outcomes differs from previous authoritative evidence-based recommendations, it is of utmost importance that the Agency revisit its proposed rule and the scientific process used to make certain that the preponderance of high-quality scientific evidence is considered,” the scientists said. “As nutrition scientists and health professionals (many with special expertise in carbohydrates), this rule as proposed would not only be misleading to consumers but also may be a disservice to public health if finalized before the underlying science is appropriately evaluated and considered.”

In the end – we’ll just predict this now – not one word of these scientists’ concerns will be heeded. Michelle O, like her Alinski-ite husband, is on a personal mission to ‘fundamentally transform’ the country into a rigid, top-down oligarchy where government is never too big and conformists go to die while independent, liberty-minded free-thinkers are considered the enemy.